2012 Elections in the USA

What we should be able to agree on:

1. There are multiple factors influencing the U3 unemployment rate.
2. There are multiple factors influencing the LFPR.
3. Millions of jobs were lost during the Great Recession.
4. Millions of jobs have been created since the recession ended - but fewer.
5. The unemployment rate is still elevated, and it's a challenge to get a good paying job.

What I think is a more interesting discussion is #5. Why is it tough for many people to find a good paying job? This should be a good topic for those who advocate digging into the numbers, and looking at the complete picture.

[QUOTE=Punter 127;421726]in order to help achieve his ultimate desire of destroying free markets and capitalism.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, Punter flushes his credibility down the toilet here. He started off with a fair point about the LFPR influencing the U3. But it became little more than a one-sided presentation to mask the progress that has been made. Now he caps off his argument with an outright lie about my political views. Not exactly objective commentary.

For the record (again), I believe in both a strong private sector and a strong government. I posted somewhat of a position statement on 1/24/2011: [url]http://www.argentinaprivate.com/forum/showthread.php?5285-American-Politics-during-the-Obama-Administration&p=415194&viewfull=1#post415194[/url]
Discussing the negative aspects of free market capitalism does not negate the positive aspects. I choose to look at both sides, than to live in some fantasy world where capitalism is a system is which jobs are only created and never lost.

For all our liberal members of AP who wish for you to believe Obama's US Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment rate of 8. 2% is accurate, please read the article I have attached to this post.

As I have pointed out in earlier posts the unemployment rate has decreased primarily due to a decrease in the US labor force as defined by the Bureau, to the tune of about 9 Million people, and not by job creation.

It is not that these 9 million folks are not still unemployed but the Bureau has 'defined' them right out of existence as far as the US labor force is concerned. The Bureau has managed to reduce the unemployment numbers from over 10% to 8. 2% and is attempting to project a continued downward trajectory for unemployment by simply reducing the labor force by changing a 'definition'.

Esten, liberals and the Obama administration attempt to explain away this 9 Million person reduction in the labor force as the Baby Boomers moving into retirement. The article points out only 26% of those 'defined' out of the labor force by Obama's Bureau of Labor Statistics are in the 55 and above age bracket, while the remain 74% of those 'defined' out of the labor force by the Bureau are in the 16-54 age bracket. The folks I know who are between 55 and 65 are still working until they qualify for Medicare, but that's a story for a different day.

While this pretty much blows up Obama's assertion all the folks are Baby Boomers retiring, the Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics adds insult to injury by making the cynical judgment that the job situation has been so bad for so long the 74% of folks of that 9 million who fall in the 16-54 bracket are being scrubbed from labor force since they have no hope of finding a job.

Interesting reading and very straightforward without the psycho babble / static smoke and mirrors used by the liberals, you know like counting the Medicare funds twice: once as a cut then as revenue.

Those 9 million folks Obama's US Bureau of Labor Statistics made vanish from the labor force are sure as hell going to reappear on Election Day!

[url]http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html[/url]

Doppleganger,

That's an interesting article, but it's simply too complicated for the typical Democratic voter (excluding the esteemed Democrat readers of this forum, of course) to comprehend.

Can you reduce it to a sound bite? Hahahaha!

Anyway, I was particularly humored by this comment...

[quote]a government which desires to control public perceptions can, by manipulating that obscure definition, make the reported [strike]unemployment[/strike] inflation rate "sit, roll over or bark like a dog" at will, almost regardless of what is actually happening with [strike]jobs[/strike] prices.[/quote]...which reminded me of the way that the Argentina government manipulates their official inflation statics.

Thanks,

Jackson

That's what John Boehner said in a television interview last September.

[QUOTE]"We have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day. It’s time for us to get serious about ensuring that these programs are going to be there for them."[/QUOTE]
Politifact checked that statement out and ranked it as completely true.
[url]http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/sep/26/john-boehner/house-speaker-john-boehner-says-10000-baby-boomers/[/url]

Retiring baby boomers are by no means the only factor influencing the LFPR. But it is certainly a factor, and probably a significant one.

Gee whiz this is fun, isn't it?

Doppel's article is from a blogger who uses his own metric "Workforce Participation Rate Change" to arrive at the 74% being from the 16-54 age group. Google this term and you'll get one hit. It's not an official statistic. I see this gentleman has a bunch of books and dvd's for sale too. Sometimes, these bloggers make claims nobody else is making to draw attention to themselves. Regardless, the 16-54 group would be the most likely to resume looking for work, in which case they'll be counted in the official unemployment rate. We can watch in the months ahead whether there is or isn't a surge of job seekers back into the labor market.

BTW, it's not the "Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics", it's the "Bureau of Labor Statistics". There is no manipulation, BLS has been using the same method to calculate the unemployment rate for 30 years.

Esten, John Boehner is a congressman, not a CFP, economist, statistician or even an accountant. I doubt he has anything to backup his claim.

I also don't really consider PolitiFact to be the end all of fact checking, particularly in this case. An excellent example of this was their rating of Obama's claim the US has only 2% of the worlds reserves, a number which has not changed since the 1940's as it refers to Proven Reserves. Folks in the energy business have successfully refuted this number due to advances in technology, discoveries of new fields, and rehabilitation of existing fields through technology increasing the US reserves from 2% to 26% of world reserves.

So what was PolitiFact's rating of Obama's statement – it was partly true and partly false. Wow does not mean it's more lie than truth. Face it Obama never let the truth stand in the way of a good campaign speech or sound bite!

[QUOTE=Esten; 421747]Regardless, the 16-54 group would be the most likely to resume looking for work, in which case they'll be counted in the official unemployment rate. We can watch in the months ahead whether there is or isn't a surge of job seekers back into the labor market.

BTW, it's not the "Obama Bureau of Labor Statistics", it's the "Bureau of Labor Statistics". There is no manipulation, BLS has been using the same method to calculate the unemployment rate for 30 years.[/QUOTE]Esten, even you do not dispute the persons falling in 16-54 bracket of long term unemployed have been dropped from the 'unemployed' figure to get the magic 8. 2%. Since these folks still don't have a job did they just vanish? They are still unemployed just not being counted due to the Bureau's change in 'definition' therefore making the unemployment number look better than it really is. Face it Esten, you like the 8. 2% number regardless of if it is true or not since it serves your purposes.

Esten, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by attempting to convince us the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not being leaned on by the Obama administration to make the unemployment picture look better than it is. If not why change the underlying assumptions for the numbers by changing definitions of who is unemployed when such a change has not been made in 30 years until the Obama admininstration came along.

Wasn't sure how much the books were being cooked until I read this.

Discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force make the unemployment rate look fractionally better, but the 8. 2 percent headline masks the misery. It is a reflection of the U-3 statistic, which counts only people who have applied for a job in the last four weeks. Among the jobless army, a staggering 42 percent of them are long-term unemployed, without jobs for six months or longer. Look instead at the more relevant U-6 statistic, which counts the number of people who have applied over the last six months. U-6 also includes those who are involuntarily working on a part-time basis. That U-6 unemployment is now in the range of 15 percent. Since 2008, some 3 million people have dropped out of the job market. If they hadn't, the unemployment rate would be about 10. 8 percent. In March, the unemployment rate seemed to fall a tenth of 1 percent, yet the number of people who are actually employed dropped by 31, 000. Why? Because the number of people who looked for a job dropped by 164, 000 and they are not considered unemployed. Not to mention that half the new jobs are in temporary help agencies.

I think Christina could take a few tips from us on how to manipulate statistics.

There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Mark Twain.

In every kind of statistical sample there are assumptions. The easiest way to play with data is to jigger with the population assumptions. The surveys tend to be fairly static. But a changing population, in the statistical not demographic sense, is the way to move the needle. Not living stateside, I don't have a good feel for what is really happening but from the doublespeak I see in the news. Something funny is going on.

Let's get the acronyms out of the way first:

Bureau of Labor & Statistic (BLS)

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Talk about piling on, after the BLS released its rosy unemployment number of 8. 2% with its prediction of a continued downward trajectory for unemployment with cooked numbers, see earlier post, along comes the CBO with their prediction on unemployment numbers which show: 1. Unemployment is higher than the 8. 2% BLS crows about; 2. Unemployment is going to rise to nearly 10% in the next two years; 3. Unemployment will not be below 8% for several years.

If the CBO blowing the BLS's numbers and Obama's claims out the water is not bad enough along comes the GAO and blasts ObamaCare for paying out $8 Billion in 'bonuses for quality of care' within the Medicare Advantage program which really is nothing of the sort since you get the bonus for delivering the same care as you provided today without any 'improvements'. You might note this little 'bonus' scheme did not come up until Obama started fading heat for the cuts to the Medicare Advantage program from seniors. Typical ObamaNomics, just keep throwing our money at the problem.

Guess Obama was so busy leaning on the BLS he forgot to make sure the CBO & GAO were all telling the same story. ROFLMAO

PolitiFact is probably the best site out there for checking what is based on fact and what isn't. It should be a go-to site for anyone interested in getting at the truth. The part-true part-false on the 2% claim sounds more than fair. Obama is citing proven reserves and based on information available, the 2% figure is correct. The USGS study released last week doesn't render that inaccurate, because the study measured "undiscovered, technically recoverable" reserves. Two different things. I can't find the page on PolitiFact but the part-false rating is probably to the critic's point that some could infer the US has less oil than we do. I'm not sure that's false but PolitiFact does attempt to be fair.

To me the % of world reserves is not the main point. It's how many years of oil we have left. Some estimates put it at hundreds of years, but I for one don't want to wait to act. Many others aren't waiting either. There is a nascent solar energy revolution happening now, at individual, government and industry levels. Federal support to help kick-start this industry in the US has been absolutely the right call. Why buy from China when we can buy from the US and create jobs here in the US at the same time. And that's just solar.

"All of the Above"? Or just "Drill Baby Drill"?

For me there isn't even a debate as to which is the superior approach for energy.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;421589]Esten, perhaps you should revisit the changes in Medicare which are already coming on line due to ObamaCare. Now many tests have been dropped from the approved payment list and when physicians order these test it is now up to the patient to pay if the tests are preformed.[/QUOTE]Doppel, do you have a credible link as to what tests were dropped? I asked you before.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;421753]Esten, please don't insult everyone's intelligence by attempting to convince us the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not being leaned on by the Obama administration to make the unemployment picture look better than it is. If not why change the underlying assumptions for the numbers by changing definitions of who is unemployed when such a change has not been made in 30 years until the Obama admininstration came along.[/QUOTE]Do you have a credible link showing how BLS changed how they calculate the official unemployment rate, let alone how Obama "leaned" on them to do it?

It's time for us to check your sources Doppel, looking forward to your responses.

Esten, the link I provided uses the BLS's numbers to demonstrate how the numbers have been fudged to lower the number in the labor force and improve the unemployment number. No Esten, I provided the link, so since you don't like the author and you consider him not credible even though his analysis stands up, you go back and see if you can find anywhere in the years before Obama when this basic assumption has been changed. Sorry you will not find it because it was only changed since 2009. Guess you missed the CBO's predictions on unemployment as well.

Do you want the specific IDC-9 and CPT codes regarding Medicare? You seem to have missed the $500 Billion cut from Medicaid to be transfered to the debt and ObamaCare. I really love this one. They count it twice, once as a reduction then as income. Just exactly how do you spend the same money twice. Only in Washington. You think they are taking all this money out of Medicare and not cutting services? Guess you are blind to the manipulation of the Medicare Advantage program as well. Even the GAO called Obama on this one.

Your losing Esten and losing badly, even the governmental wonks are coming down on Obama.

Esten, I do some work in the oil patch, Obama chose a very outdated statistic to suit his needs not what is a commonly accepted FACT in the industry. Esten can you say horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, better software analysis of seismographic data, just to name a few? When the folks who do the work tell me it's out there for another hundred years I tend to believe them, after all these are the folks that find, develop and deliver the product with private funds they put at risk. They know a lot more about it than the knot head in the White House.

Boy do I love your argument on Solar, without all the government subsidies the wind and solar industries would fold. Why did China cash in on our push for solar and bankrupt many American companies you failed to ask. I know this is an alien concept for you Esten. But they delivered an acceptable product at a lower cost even after shipping it half way around the world than American companies. Guess you missed the auto maker deciding to build cars in Mexico even though it has facilities in the US because their labor rate is about 25% of that in the US. It's about economics Esten, first last and always.

If you want it clean, forget the exotic stuff that can't survive in the real world without massive subsidies, go with natural gas or spend the money on clean coal research since we have some of the largest coal deposits in the world. But, NO, that is not sexy enough for liberals. Not cool to have a coffee table book about coal or nature gas, so much better to show pretty mirror arrays and slowing turning turbine blades – which by the way are killing eagles. Bet they didn't show that on their glossy photos!

Any nitwit knows that so called green, renewable energy is a hoax. Even Obama. It is possible that Obama is naive enough to believe this green energy baloney and waste trillions of our tax dollars on it. However, I think it is more likely that Obama has to pander to these green energy frauds because they are his voter base. Either way, this is not the type of change we baggained for when we put this birdbrain in the White house.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;421830]Any nitwit knows that so called green, renewable energy is a hoax. Even Obama. It is possible that Obama is naive enough to believe this green energy baloney and waste trillions of our tax dollars on it. However, I think it is more likely that Obama has to pander to these green energy frauds because they are his voter base. Either way, this is not the type of change we baggained for when we put this birdbrain in the White house.[/QUOTE]With that attitude in the 1900's we would still be riding horse drawn buggies and sailing on the titanic instead of airplanes. Also Obama himself did not waste "trillions", you may need to drop a few zeros.

Gato Hunter, I don't think you want to choose that era to compare to solar and wind. Back then the government did not hand out huge multi-million dollar subsidies to inventors. Back then folks with an idea secured private funds and if the inventions they came up with were commercially viable they succeeded if not they failed. Look at all the inventions which came about during that time, it was not the 'government' that brought those products to market but free enterprise and the now hated '1%'ers' who plowed the money into the products. No burdensome government entities and regulations or green weenies to get in the way of progress. I'm all for shrinking the federal and state governments back down to the size they were in the 1900's!